Shri Ankeshkumar Bachubhai Gandhi, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 396/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Ankeshkumar Bachubhai Gandhi, a dealer in gold and silver, who appealed against the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 31,81,000 as unexplained credit under Section 68, alleging that the assessee had availed accommodation entries. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not substantiate their claims regarding the fabrication of documents and merely rejected the evidences without proper examination. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition made under Section 68.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299973 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 143(2); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . No .3 96 /A h d / 20 22 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 17- 18 ) Sh r i A n ke s h ku ma r B a c h u bh ai Ga nd hi, C - 5 , H a ve li C ha mb e r s , M G Ha ve li R o ad , Ma n ek C ho w k, A h m e d a b a d Vs .I T O War d - 1 ( 3) ( 1 ) , A h me da ba d [P AN N o.A H RP G4 57 0 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, JCIT D a t e of H ea r i ng 02.02.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 24.02.2023 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 30.08.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or facts in upholding the assessment order passed by Ld. AO when there was allegation that Ld AO has violate the principal of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to cross examine the person on whose statement Ld AO had relied upon 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO where assessment order passed by the Ld. AO without valid jurisdiction in absence of order U/S 127 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or facts in upholding invocation of section 115BBE of the Act when transaction are occurred prior to insertion of provision on statute made by the Ld. AO. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or facts in upholding the addition U/S 68 of the Act of Rs. 31,81,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. 6. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 3. The assessee is dealing in Gold and Silver in wholesale and retail market in the name of Vimlachal Jewels. The assessee filed return of income ITA No. 396/Ahd/2022 Shri Ankeshkumar Bachubhai Gandhi vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 2 - for A.Y. 2017-18 on 01.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 2,95,250/-. Notice under Section 143(2) dated 21.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that in respect of availment of accommodation entry amounting to Rs. 31,81,000/- by the assessee through the concern M/s. SVP Corporation, controlled and managed by Shri Vishal Dipakkumar Pandya/Bharat Popat as received the said amount by way of accommodation entry, therefore, the sale concerned. In response to the same show-cause notice the assessee submitted that the assessee do not take any accommodation entry during the year from Shri Vishal D. Pandya/Bharat Popat but the amount of Rs. 31,81,000/- was received from SVP Corporation on account of sale made. The assessee filed confirmation, copy of sale bill dated 13.11.2016, copy of ledger account had also been enclosed with the reply. The Assessing Officer did not accept the said reply and made addition of Rs. 31,80,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notices. There is no change in address and in fact the acknowledgement card issued by postal authorities alongwith (envelope) return back to the registry with the remark left. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings reproduced in assessment order and statement of facts filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). 6. Heard Ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has filed confirmation copy of ITA No. 396/Ahd/2022 Shri Ankeshkumar Bachubhai Gandhi vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 3 - sale bill, copy of ledger bill account but the remark of the Assessing Officer that same was fabricated has not been substantiated by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order as well as by the CIT(A). The statement of fact filed by the assessee has given the details about confirmation from SVP Corporation, Sales Bill, Stock Register, PAN Card of proprietor (Vishal Pandya), Sales Register, Purchase Register etc. In fact, the accounting entries are passed in Bank book, Sales register and Stock register were duly recorded by the assessee in its books of accounts as per the statement of facts filed by the assessee. All these contentions were not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). The observation of the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) that the documents were fabricated was not established by the revenue authorities at any point of time and merely rejecting the evidences filed by the assessee cannot be sole criteria for making addition. Therefore, the addition does not sustain. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 24/02/2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 24/02/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad